“It however needs to be stated that TAWUSA despite being granted reprieve has not come to Court with clean hands.  In fact its approach to this whole matter has been characterised by pure indifference, incompetence and lack of care towards its membership and its very existence.  It sought to portray itself as a victim in the very consequences of its inaction which could have been avoided.  Other than all the other problems highlighted, the bringing of this application before the Court in Johannesburg is inexcusable and had caused great inconvenience to the First Respondent.  It is apparent from correspondence exchanged between the parties’ attorneys of record that TAWUSA could have launched this application in Port Elizabeth, but used this issue as a bargaining leverage.  In the light of these factors, considerations of law and fairness dictate that TAWUSA should be burdened with the costs of this application on a punitive scale”.

Tlhotlhalemaje AJ in Tawusa v Algoa Bus Company (Pty) Ltd (J 603/15) [2015] ZALCJHB 107; [2015] 7 BLLR 738 ; (2015) ILJ 2148  (27 March 2015) at para [34].